Does Presuppositional Apologetics Undercut the Gift of Faith?

[No Other Name]

My question for all is in the title.

My backstory regarding this query is presented here:

In reading Van Till and listening to old Bahsen audio recordings and watching it in action, it seems that the transcendental argument for the existence of God does not account for the work of the Spirit in salvation. I mean that they make it seem like one could *think* oneself into a string of reasoning that leads to what amounts to a confessional faith with no pre-requisite need for the Word or the Spirit.

When I defended my faith to a friend recently, I told him would proceed on two axioms I accept on faith: 1) God exists (Christian God of the Bible) and 2) the Bible is His inerrant Word for all.

He only took me up on that because he was certain the Bible was full of inconsistencies and errors that he was eager to go along with my not needing to proves these statements as he had many errors he was looking forward to introduce that would disprove the Bible's inerrancy and ergo prove the Christian God is non-existent. It was interesting in that his claims seemed to be loaded up for an Arminian free-will type of believer.

And I only found the existence of the laws of logic (ie presuppostionalism) needed when he started doubting any possible God at all. But that only happened when he felt cornered on the fact he actually did not understand the doctrine of God's sovereignty.

 

[Taylor]

In reading Van Till and listening to old Bahsen audio recordings and watching it in action, it seems that the transcendental argument for the existence of God does not account for the work of the Spirit in salvation. I mean that they make it seem like one could *think* oneself into a string of reasoning that leads to what amounts to a confessional faith with no pre-requisite need for the Word or the Spirit.

I’m honestly dumbfounded as to how someone could read Van Til or Bahnsen and come to this conclusion. As a presuppositionalist, this paragraph is unrecognizable.

 

[No Other Name]

I’m honestly dumbfounded as to how someone could read Van Til or Bahnsen and come to this conclusion. As a presuppositionalist, this paragraph is unrecognizable.

I can see you are dumbfounded indeed lol.

It may help if you re-read my post as a question instead of a statement or any "conclusion".

I said what it *seems*. So if you can shed any light on it that would be great.

When I read the Bible, the Spirit speaks to me through the words. It is a gift from God of faith that this is true as I read the Bible.

When I read that presuppositionalism says that faith in God is primary and precedes the understanding of everything else, ok, I nod my head, but then the very laws of logic and reasoning are co-opted into the argument and that is amazingly fun to watch in debates no doubt!

But it is there: from that point onward that all claims about God and the Bible are now included as points within syllogisms; logical necessities that so rule the analytical processes that faith - while undergirding the foundation of the whole argument - seems like forgotten in claims of superior logical coherence and consistency.

This seems to make it nice that God speaks through His Word, but not necessary as I can follow it.

Hypothetically, if one grants His existence by general revelation as Romans 1 declares. And he follows from God's existence into the full pre-suppositional model onward then - indeed as far as I can tell - one could reason themselves into far more than just the existence of God by His general revelation.

Acknowledging from there He is the basis of laws of logic and the Bible as the most coherent and consistent possible candidate for His Word and then acknowledging from there Jesus rose from the dead as atonement for sins.

Is this just a logical possibility that just happens to be *impossible* due to our limitations as fallen humans? Eph. 2:8 must still hold true above all:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"

If I am missing something, I'd love to know. If I am just wrong regarding to how it seems to plays out in debates with logic being more emphasized than faith, I'd love to be wrong.

I want to be a pre-suppositionalist, but something isn't sitting right. Something feels contradictory to the application of pre-suppositionalism in action in debates.

Again I would love to simply be missing something. Thanks in advance.

 

[No Other Name]

@Taylor I believe this quote from MacArthur on one of my Reformed FB groups was what I was looking for.

Please bear in mind I am a recovering Arminian. I fully accept Calvinism but after decades in Arminian churches and I can see cracks where it slips through and confuses me especially in implications of statements.

 

[Joshua]

Does Presuppositional Apologetics Undercut the Gift of Faith?​

No.

 

[No Other Name]

No.

Really.

Don't strain yourself too much posting a reply here though.

My own prayerful research has been working this out anyway.

 

[Joshua]

Don't strain yourself too much posting a reply here though.

Ok.

 

[Joshua]

P.S. - Just joshin’

 

[Taylor]

@Taylor I believe this quote from MacArthur on one of my Reformed FB groups was what I was looking for.

Please bear in mind I am a recovering Arminian. I fully accept Calvinism but after decades in Arminian churches and I can see cracks where it slips through and confuses me especially in implications of statements.

Where does presuppositional apologetics say that faith consists in merely "accepting a list of facts"?

 

[No Other Name]

Where does presuppositional apologetics say that faith consists in merely "accepting a list of facts"?

It doesn't?

Did you read my post explaining my initial question?

# 3 was in reply to you and expanding on my initial question.

 

[Taylor]

Did you read my post explaining my initial question?

I did, but it was merely your interpretation of what you read. I noted that it differs greatly from what I have read, not to mention what I myself, as a presuppositionalist, believe. So, I question your interpretation. So, what I am asking is this: Do you have quotes or in-depth analysis showing that presuppositionalism says what it "seems" (your word) to say?

 

[No Other Name]

I did, but it was merely your interpretation of what you read. I noted that it differs greatly from what I have read, not to mention what I myself, as a presuppositionalist, believe. So, I question your interpretation. So, what I am asking is this: Do you have quotes or in-depth analysis showing that presuppositionalism says what it "seems" (your word) to say?

No. Not what it seemed to "say" but what it seemed to imply if carried from the acceptance of its logic onward.

And I think I get it now.

I think MacArthur's quote was applied to a scenario much like my initial confusion re: the full soteriological implications of presuppositional apologetics. That quote was my "aha" light bulb moment.

It is indeed impossible to think oneself into the kingdom of God - even if a non-believer agrees to all the presuppositional premises and logically follows the model forward into a theistic Christian worldview. As Eph. 2:8 says.

Even if I have been less than clear, this has been illuminating and I thank you for your engagement. Your questions for me helped frame my research

 

[Taylor]

It is indeed impossible to think oneself into the kingdom of God - even if a non-believer agrees to all the presuppositional premises and logically follows the model forward into a theistic Christian worldview.

I agree absolutely, totally, 100% with this. And I know Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, et al., would/do agree wholeheartedly, as well.

Even if I have been less than clear, this has been illuminating and I thank you for your engagement. Your questions for me helped frame my research

Much obliged!

 

[No Other Name]

I agree absolutely, totally, 100% with this. And I know Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, et al., would/do agree wholeheartedly, as well.


Much obliged!

Frame.

A new author to look up.

Love this board. Thanks, brother!